(no subject)

[bzarcher]

Okay, work's hit a lull, and we're talking about, well, geek stuff. :D

The topic du jour is currently Home Theatre. 2 of the guys in the office have built their own, and I'm starting to think about it. And, as you might expect, this lead to a question that I'm throwing out here, too.

Does anyone know of a company that sells a wireless module for rear speakers? We found a few systems from RCA (crap!), Philips (crap!), and Sony (Waaaaay too expensive) that came with a wireless reciever/transmitter set for the rear speakers, but no stand alone components that could be hooked to an existing receiver.

I mean, this can't be that hard. Give it 3 or 4 RF channels to work between, have a module that goes to the reciever's inputs for the rear, and then a set of speakers who recieve on those freqs. Maybe even just have a second module that you plug existing rear speakers into? That way you at least can get rid of some of the cable clutter, even if not all.

Hell, ideally, you'd think people would be jumping on the idea of making a home theatre system that's entirely wireless, but the technology may still be a bit too expensive.

Any ideas or input? Heck, with some of the mad scientists who read this, anyone who's got ideas or stories about rigging something? We're kinda kicking around maybe using Bluetooth to control the speakers, with a media centre style PC managing the actual AV processing, levels, etx.

Comments

[buschap.livejournal.com]

ok... here's the biggest thing. Transformers and amps are expensive (and volume controls can be). Each speaker would need power, which equals an amp and transformer. Plus some kind of volume regulator to have the volume equal on each.

Plus, I don't get this fucking hatred of wires. Careful installation isn't hard, and once you're done moving every 4 months, isn't a big deal. Let's pollute our spectrum with all kinds of RF and EM that'll start colliding easily! Whee!

Wireless is good for Wavebirds, laptops, maybe keyboards if you type on your lap. My computer which never moves? My speakers, one of which I slide two feet to vacuum? Wires are a great solution, and will provide *much* better fidelity than any reasonable amount of RF will. Have you ever *listened* to a cordless phone? Top of the line ones sound like ass. Do you really want to listen to music that sounds like ass?

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

Wires are a pain in the ass for areas with limited space, high floor traffic (especially if you don't want to run along or through walls, or can't put it through or on ceiling runs. Plus, yes, it isn't hard to move things, but what if you need things to move often, or re-arrange a lot? (Michael T. was especially thinking about this because he has small kids, and that tends to lead to a lot of re-arranging or wanting to keep the kids /out/ of things.)

And yes, you usually set these up for longer than a few months at a time, but how often do you adjust things in a house? I know a lot of people whose furniture tends to shift and re-arrange every 3-4 months, at least. And, yes, it adds to the unit, but it's also things that won't fail due to being unplugged and don't risk splits or damage to the communication medium.

Fidelity can be an issue, but if you use a high-bandwith unit (900mhz+ seems the standard for those units that are wireless), I think that has more potential than a cordless phone for good fidelity. Plus, you won't be depending on the phone line quality for your source signal.

The Bluetooth idea also has potential for this. If it's good enough for several audiophile headphones, wouldn't that mean it can give what companies like Bose and Harman Kardon consider acceptible quality?

Wires are going to probably be a superior medium for fidelity and areas that you can configure to specifics. But wireless also offers a lot of possibilites that don't need to get shunted into 'fucking hatred of wires.'

Plus, this was a bs/brainstorming session between bored people. Do those always have to make sense?

[buschap.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know, and I attacked harder than I really meant to. You don't so much fall into the camp of "gee whiz this is cool (though a bad idea), I'll do it!". I'm surprised anyone's using bluetooth for headphones. That's wild (if not a touch inappropriate, just cause of what BT was designed for). Probably not good enough for speakers though, as those have more dynamic range generally. Wireless is a great idea for headphones, and I wish they could get it down. Speakers will remain at least cost-prohibitive for some time. I have a decent reciever which was $100. Let's say half that is switching electronics and tuner and such. That leaves $50 as the transformer and amp electronics. You'd have to add that $50 (consumer cost) to each speaker in your setup. I doubt people would like tacking another $300 (5.1) onto their price. But that's just estimating as well. And who knows? Get developing ;)

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

*nods*

I was surprised to see Bluetooth as well, but apparently people really like 'em. The ones I saw (admittedly mostly in magazines) were scoring well. And if they could interface with bluetooth phones and similar stuff, that could make some sense in terms of multifunction.

I still think there's gotta be a way to do a reciever to tie to normal speakers. :D I know that individual speakers really are impractical to work per-speaker, but I'm betting that wouldn't be so bad. Oh, well.